US President Donald Trump on Nov. 1 said that he has ordered [7] the Pentagon, or the "Department of War," to prepare contingency plans for potential military action in Nigeria. Trump alleged that the Nigerian government has failed to protect Christian communities from violent extremist attacks.
Trump stated on social media: "If the Nigerian Government continues to allow the killing of Christians, the U.S.A. will immediately stop all aid and assistance to Nigeria, and may very well go into that now disgraced country, 'guns-a-blazing.'" He pledged that any US strike would be "fast, vicious, and sweet."
The comments follow Trump's declaration [8] the previous day designating Nigeria as a "country of particular concern" (CPC) for religious-freedom violations, citing what he described as an "existential threat" to Christianity. US Sen. Ted Cruz has similarly pushed Congress [10] to adopt the designation, alleging that "[r]eligious persecution and violence against Christians and other religious minorities in Nigeria is endemic."
Nigerian President Bola Ahmed Tinubu rejected the claims, arguing that they misrepresent the country’s religious landscape and constitutional protections.
"Religious freedom and tolerance have been a core tenet of our collective identity and shall always remain so," Tinubu said [11]. "Nigeria opposes religious persecution and does not encourage it."
Trump’s threat marks a dramatic departure from traditional US diplomatic strategy in West Africa, and raises immediate questions about the legality of unilateral American military action.
Under Article II [12] of the US Constitution, presidents have the authority to order military operations, but large-scale offensive action typically requires congressional authorization under the War Powers Resolution of 1973 [13], which mandates congressional notification and limits unauthorized deployments. Humanitarian intervention alone is not an independent statutory basis for presidential war powers. Absent a national-security justification or congressional authorization, a full-scale strike would likely exceed executive authority.
International law further constrains such action. The UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force [14] against sovereign states absent Security Council approval [15] or self-defense grounds [16]. Nigeria has not attacked the United States and has not consented to intervention. A unilateral “guns-a-blazing” operation would therefore face formidable legal obstacles and diplomatic backlash.
By contrast, the threat to halt aid sits on firmer legal footing. The executive branch maintains broad authority under the Foreign Assistance Act [17] to suspend or condition foreign assistance for human-rights concerns, including religious-freedom violations. Yet doing so would signal a significant policy shift, given Nigeria’s role as a regional counter-terrorism partner and Africa’s most populous democracy.
Nigeria was first placed on the CPC list in 2020 [18] over what the US State Department described as “systematic … violations of religious freedom.” The designation did not single out attacks on Christians. Former President Joe Biden's administration lifted [19] the designation in 2023.
From JURIST [20], Nov. 2. Used with permission.
Note: Jihadist groups have targeted Christians in Plateau [21] and Borno [22] states, but these areas have also seen [23] repeated atrocities and mass abductions [24] against fellow Muslims.
